Replies

"So... is that it? That's the argument? You made it sound an AWFUL lot more technical than that! Really though, show me."

It was in the link that I gave in my original post, if you want the math for sequencing.

For sequencing, you have one set of probabilities for such structures forming without intelligent intervention, and a probability of 1 that such sequences could be ordered by an intelligent designer. That math is included in the link that I provided, though it should be intuitively obvious to a computer programmer such as yourself that it takes intelligent intervention to write a program rather than merely leaving a computer on overnight to have it form unaided.

"It was in the link that I gave in my original post, if you want the math for sequencing."

Ok, I read it... good grief. Here is his conclusion:

"In light of this, I find it impossible to believe that "chance" had anything to do with the process that created life. How can I suppose that Shakespeare himself was the result of a random process when it is quite clearly impossible for even a trivial fragment of his work to have arisen by chance? No sir, I see information all around me, and I conclude that it is the product of a far, far greater intelligence.

Information is the product of intelligence, not chance."

Since it would take an astronomical amount of time for the monkeys to type shakepeare, life could not have evolved? What kind of a lame argument is that?!?! It makes absolutely no sense. Just because he wrestled us through his grade 8 math tutorial on probability, we should just believe his conclusion that has nothing to do with his data?

Also, with regards to his monkey logic, he is WRONG. The saying specifies an infinite number of monkeys and an infinite number of typwriters. In the guy's logic, he does the math for ONE monkey! Not that it matters, since his conclusion was a non-sequitur anyway, and, well infinity is an abstract concept in mathematics, so you couldn't use it in the equation anyway. Which means he should have known better from the start.

This is the best argument you have for ID? Have you glanced lately at the thousands of technical papers published on evolution in the actual scientific literature?

For sequencing, you have one set of probabilities for such structures forming without intelligent intervention,

Oh, you mean that debunked probability analysis that assumes there is no order to nature and that everything is totally random. That would be like saying the sun had a 50/50 chance of rising the next day and if it did rise there was a 50/50 chance that it would be green.

it should be intuitively obvious to a computer programmer such as yourself that it takes intelligent intervention to write a program rather than merely leaving a computer on overnight to have it form unaided.

See www.genetic-programming.org/

"There are now 36 instances where genetic programming has automatically produced a result that is competitive with human performance, including 15 instances where genetic programming has created an entity that either infringes or duplicates the functionality of a previously patented 20th-century invention, 6 instances where genetic programming has done the same with respect to a 21st-centry invention, and 2 instances where genetic programming has created a patentable new invention."

In its simplest form, genetic programming creates several random starting programs, runs them, compares the results to the desired result, discards the least successful programs, slightly modifes the more successful, and repeats. Highly evolutionary, and no intelligence is involved.